Managing Chronic Pain in Cancer Survivors Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy: A National Survey of Ambulatory Palliative Care Providers

The role of specialist palliative care in individuals "living beyond cancer": a narrative review of the literature

PURPOSE

Many patients living beyond cancer experience significant unmet needs, although few of these patients are currently reviewed by specialist palliative care teams (SPCTs). The aim of this narrative review was to explore the current and potential role of SPCTs in this cohort of patients.

METHODS

A search strategy was developed for Medline, and adapted for Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo. Additionally, websites of leading oncology, cancer survivorship, and specialist palliative care organisations were examined. The focus of the search was on individuals living beyond cancer rather than other groups of cancer survivors.

RESULTS

111 articles were retrieved from the search for full text review, and 101 other sources of information were identified after hand searching the reference lists of the full text articles, and the aforesaid websites. The themes of the review encompass the definition of palliative care/specialist palliative care, current models of specialist palliative care, core activities of SPCTs, relevant expertise of SPCTs, and potential barriers to change in relation to extending their support and expertise to individuals living beyond cancer. The review identified a paucity of evidence to support the role of SPCTs in the management of patients living beyond cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals living beyond cancer have many unmet needs, and specific services are required to manage these problems. Currently, there is limited evidence to support the role of specialist palliative care teams in the management of this cohort of people, and several potential barriers to greater involvement, including limited resources, and lack of relevant expertise.

Identifying provider, patient and practice factors that shape long-term opioid prescribing for cancer pain: a qualitative study of American and Australian providers

INTRODUCTION

Prescribing long-term opioid therapy is a nuanced clinical decision requiring careful consideration of risks versus benefits. Our goal is to understand patient, provider and context factors that impact the decision to prescribe opioids in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the raw semistructured interview data gathered from 42 prescribers who participated in one of two aligned concurrent qualitative studies in the USA and Australia. We conducted a two-part analysis of the interview: first identifying all factors influencing long-term prescribing and second open coding-related content for themes.

RESULTS

Factors that influence long-term opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain clustered under three key domains (patient-related, provider-related and practice-related factors) each with several themes. Domain 1: Patient factors related to provider-patient continuity, patient personality, the patient's social context and patient characteristics including racial/ethnic identity, housing and socioeconomic status. Domain 2: Provider-related factors centred around provider 'personal experience and expertise', training and time availability. Domain 3: Practice-related factors included healthcare interventions to promote safer opioid practices and accessibility of quality alternative pain therapies.

CONCLUSION

Despite the differences in the contexts of the two countries, providers consider similar patient, provider and practice-related factors when long-term prescribing opioids for patients with cancer. Some of these factors may be categorised as cognitive biases that may intersect in an already disadvantaged patient and exacerbate disparities in the treatment of their pain. A more systematic understanding of these factors and how they impact the quality of care can inform appropriate interventions.

Substance use disorders in hospice palliative care: A narrative review of challenges and a case for physician intervention

OBJECTIVES

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are frequently encountered in hospice palliative care (HPC) and pose substantial quality-of-life issues for patients. However, most HPC physicians do not directly treat their patients' SUDs due to several institutional and personal barriers. This review will expand upon arguments for the integration of SUD treatment into HPC, will elucidate challenges for HPC providers, and will provide recommendations that address these challenges.

METHODS

A thorough review of the literature was conducted. Arguments for the treatment of SUDs and recommendations for physicians have been synthesized and expanded upon.

RESULTS

Treating SUD in HPC has the potential to improve adherence to care, access to social support, and outcomes for pain, mental health, and physical health. Barriers to SUD treatment in HPC include difficulties with accurate assessment, insufficient training, attitudes and stigma, and compromised pain management regimens. Recommendations for physicians and training environments to address these challenges include developing familiarity with standardized SUD assessment tools and pain management practice guidelines, creating and disseminating visual campaigns to combat stigma, including SUD assessment and intervention as fellowship competencies, and obtaining additional training in psychosocial interventions.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

By following these recommendations, HPC physicians can improve their competence and confidence in working with individuals with SUDs, which will help meet the pressing needs of this population.

Caring for Patients With Opioid Misuse or Substance Use Disorders in Hospice: A National Survey

Background: Opioid misuse and substance use disorders (SUDs) including opioid use disorder (OUD) are common and negatively impact quality of life. Hospice clinicians' experiences with these conditions have not been well described. Objectives: We sought to explore hospice clinicians' knowledge, practices, and comfort caring for patients with opioid misuse (e.g., a pattern of unsanctioned opioid use escalation, or concurrent illicit substance use) and SUDs. Design: We recruited hospice clinicians in the United States via national hospice and palliative care organizations to complete an online survey designed by the study authors and pilot tested with an interdisciplinary group of current/former hospice clinicians. Results: One hundred seventy-five clinicians (40% nurses, 40% physicians, 16% nurse practitioners) responded to the survey; most had cared for two or more hospice patients with opioid misuse or SUD in the past month. The majority felt confident identifying opioid misuse (94%) and taking SUD histories (79%). Most (62%) felt it is their role to treat hospice patients for SUD, though 56% lacked comfort in using buprenorphine for OUD treatment. While the majority felt it is their role to treat pain in hospice patients with SUDs (94%) and that hospice can help patients with SUDs (94%), many were not comfortable managing pain in patients taking buprenorphine (45%) or naltrexone (49%) for SUDs. Most felt comfortable managing pain in patients taking methadone for SUD (73%). Conclusions: Opioid misuse and SUD are common in hospice. Though clinicians are comfortable taking relevant histories, they feel less comfortable managing patients' opioid misuse or SUD, or these patients' pain.

Increasing Provider Self-Efficacy to Manage Chronic Cancer Pain

BACKGROUND

Aims: Pain is a significant problem for those with a cancer diagnosis. Oncology providers often use opioid therapy to manage cancer-related pain. Accessing opioid therapy has grown increasingly difficult because of the opioid epidemic. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) released guidelines to optimize pain management for patients with oncologic diagnoses. The goal of this quality improvement project was to create an educational session and evaluate self-efficacy in providers who manage chronic cancer pain.

DESIGN

The Plan-Do-Study-Act was used as the framework for this quasi-experimental study with a pre/post education survey design.

SETTINGS

Level 1 Trauma Center in Upstate, NY.

PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS

Family Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants in a local cancer institute.

METHODS

There was a voice over PowerPoint educational intervention used to discuss key points of the guidelines, which included addressing aberrant behaviors, safe opioid prescribing, and interdisciplinary pain management. A convenience sample size of 18 advanced practice providers (APP) were recruited from a level 1-trauma center in Upstate, New York. Participants reviewed the educational intervention and completed a series of surveys to assess tool satisfaction and self-efficacy scores.

RESULTS

Data analysis revealed a significant increase in the mean self-efficacy scores on the post-education Jackson Opioid Therapy Self-Efficacy tool. The educational intervention was associated with improved perceptions of self-efficacy when managing chronic cancer pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the study's results, the guidelines released by ASCO should be reviewed and used to optimize pain management and self-efficacy in providers who work with oncologic patients. Furthermore, future research is recommended to evaluate the effect of evidence-based guidelines on patient outcomes and morbidity.

Toward a Psychological Model of Chemical Coping with Opioids in Cancer Care

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AFTER PARTICIPATING IN THIS CME ACTIVITY, THE PSYCHIATRIST SHOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO

• Outline the risk factors involved with opioid accessibility in patients receiving treatment for cancer.• Identify factors to address in order to mitigate risk for opioid misuse during cancer care.

ABSTRACT

Most patients with advanced cancer receive treatment for related pain. Opioid accessibility, however, is a risk factor for misuse, which can present care challenges and quality-of-life concerns. There is a lack of consistent universal screening prior to initiation of opioid prescribing. One crucial issue in treating this population is adequately identifying and mitigating risk factors driving opioid misuse. Drawing on theory and research from addiction science, psychology, palliative care, and oncology, the presented conceptual framework suggests that risk factors for opioid misuse during cancer care can be stratified into historical, current, malleable, and unmalleable factors. The framework identifies necessary factors to address in order to mitigate risk for opioid misuse during cancer care, and offers key directions for future research.

Bridging the gap: Palliative care integration into survivorship care

As the number of cancer survivors grows, there is an increasing need for comprehensive care to address the unique physical, psychological, and social needs of this population. Palliative care (PC) integration within survivorship care offers a promising model of care, however, there is no comprehensive review of literature to guide clinical practice. This manuscript presents a scoping review of the research literature on models of care that integrate PC with survivorship care, as well as a detailed description of an exemplar clinical model. We identified 20 articles that described various models of survivorship care with integrated PC, highlighting the diversity of approaches and the multidisciplinary nature of interventions. Few studies reported outcomes but those that did demonstrated improvements in pain, self-efficacy, depression, function, and documentation of advance care planning. The evidence base remains limited, indicating the need for further research in this area with a focus on exploring outcomes using prospective experimental designs. Future clinical practice and research should explore sustainable payment models and the implementation of integrated survivorship care in value-based payment systems.

Safe Prescribing Practices: Clinicians' Views on Prescribing Opioids to Patients With Early-Stage Cancer

PURPOSE

Opioids are often necessary for patients experiencing high-intensity pain. However, side effects exist and some patients may misuse opioids. To better understand how opioids are prescribed to patients with early-stage cancer and how to enhance opioid safety, clinicians' views of opioid prescribing were explored.

METHODS

This was a qualitative inquiry including any Alberta clinician prescribing opioids to patients with early-stage cancer. Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurse practitioners (NP), medical oncologists (MO), radiation oncologists (RO), surgeons (S), primary care physicians (PCP), and palliative care physicians (PC) between June 2021 and March 2022. Interpretive description was used to analyze the data using two coders (C.C. and T.W.). Debriefing sessions were used to resolve and discrepancies.

RESULTS

Twenty-four clinicians were interviewed (NP [n = 5], MO [n = 4], RO [n = 4], S [n = 5], PCP [n = 3], and PC [n = 3]). The majority had been in practice at least 10 years. Prescribing practices were related to disciplinary perspective, goals of care, patient condition, and resource availability. Most clinicians did not see opioid misuse as a problem but were aware that specific patient risk factors are present and that long-term use can be problematic. Most clinicians undertake safe prescribing approaches tacitly (eg, screening for past opioid misuse and reviewing number of prescribers) and not all agreed they should be universally applied. Barriers (eg, procedural and time) and facilitators (eg, education) to safe prescribing approaches were identified.

CONCLUSION

To enhance uptake and cross-disciplinary consistency of safe prescribing approaches, clinician education regarding opioid misuse and benefits of safe prescribing practices, and addressing procedural barriers are necessary.

Clinician Perspectives on Managing Chronic Pain After Curative-Intent Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

Among cancer survivors who have completed curative-intent treatment, the high prevalence and adverse consequences of chronic pain are well documented. Yet, research on clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain among cancer survivors is critically lacking.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 clinicians (six oncology, three palliative care, and eight primary care) affiliated with an academic medical center. Interview questions addressed clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain (with or without opioid therapy) during the transition from active treatment to survivorship. A multidisciplinary team conducted content analysis of interview transcripts to identify and refine themes related to current practices and challenges in managing chronic pain in this context.

RESULTS

Overall, clinicians perceived chronic pain to be relatively uncommon among cancer survivors. Identified challenges included a lack of clarity about which clinician (or clinicians) are best positioned to manage chronic pain among cancer survivors, and (relatedly) complexities introduced by long-term opioid management, with many clinicians describing this practice as outside their skill set. Additionally, although most clinicians recognized chronic pain as a biopsychosocial phenomenon, they described challenges with effectively managing psychosocial stressors, including difficulty accessing mental or behavioral health services for cancer survivors.

CONCLUSION

Discovered challenges highlight unmet needs related to cancer survivor-clinician communication about chronic pain and the absence of a chronic pain management home for cancer survivors, including those requiring long-term opioid therapy. Research evaluating routine pain monitoring and accessible, tailored models of multimodal pain care in survivorship may help to address these challenges.

An acceptance and commitment therapy-based intervention for opioid use disorder risk in individuals with cancer: A treatment development study

This paper describes the iterative development of an evidence-based behavioral intervention for individuals with cancer at risk for opioid use disorder, using the National Institutes of Health Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development. Adult patients with cancer from an outpatient palliative care clinic at an academic cancer center, with moderate to high risk of opioid misuse, were enrolled in a treatment development study that aimed to increase psychological flexibility. In this intervention, psychological flexibility is the posited mechanism of change for reduction of opioid use disorder risk. Patients completed baseline (pre-intervention) assessments, a six-session behavioral intervention based in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, post-intervention assessments, and a semi-structured exit interview. Ten patients with moderate to high risk of opioid misuse completed the intervention. Patients rated the intervention as highly acceptable and were generally highly satisfied. Patients reported finding the coping skills helpful (e.g., mindfulness, cognitive defusion) and reported a preference for more sessions. These treatment development efforts have implications for the development and design of acceptance- and mindfulness-based, targeted interventions for individuals with cancer, receiving palliative care and at risk for opioid use disorder. Specifically, this six-session behavioral intervention to increase psychological flexibility was acceptable to patients and ready to be studied in a pilot RCT.

Identifying barriers and facilitators for nurse practitioners' opioid management of chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Drug overdose deaths greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, with 100,306 cases occurring in the United States over 12 months from 2020 to 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the year before. Three quarters of these deaths involved opioids, and this epidemic has seriously complicated chronic pain management. The role of nurse practitioners (NPs) in opioid prescription has expanded since Affordable Care Act passage in 2010, but their prescription of opioids for chronic pain management is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

This integrative review aimed to identify barriers, facilitators, and other factors influencing NPs' management of chronic pain with opioids.

DATA SOURCES

Five databases were searched for the highest level of evidence in articles published from 2011 to 2021. Search results were refined to focus on NPs' chronic pain management via opioid prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine studies were selected for the review. Six identified themes were indicative of barriers, facilitators, and other factors affecting NPs' opioid management: nurse practitioner education, patient subjectivity and patient education, systemic change and alternative treatment access, interprofessional collaboration, nurse practitioner prescriptive authority, and practice environment. States and schools of nursing should modify policy and curricula to better support NPs' opioid management and reduce associated prescription barriers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

NPs' opioid management can best be improved by providing them with current guideline-based education regarding opioid prescription, emphasizing patient education, supplying NPs with systemic support, encouraging interprofessional collaboration, and solving the prescriptive authority issues. Enhancing NPs' opioid prescription and chronic pain management knowledge would help to mitigate the opioid epidemic.

An Educational Needs Assessment for Outpatient Palliative Care Clinicians

Introduction: As the field of palliative medicine continues to grow in community-based settings, outpatient palliative care clinics have become an important site for providing upstream palliative care to patients and families. It is unclear whether current training models, focused predominantly on the inpatient setting, adequately prepare clinicians for outpatient palliative care practice. Methods: We performed an online educational needs assessment survey of physicians and advanced practice providers working in outpatient palliative care clinics. Survey questions focused on the importance of specific palliative care knowledge, skills, and attitudes in outpatient practice using the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) curricular milestones to guide survey development. We also explored clinician perception of training adequacy and current educational needs relevant to outpatient practice. Results: One hundred sixty-four clinicians, including 122 (74.4%) physicians, 32 (19.5%) nurse practitioners, and 8 (4.9%) physician assistants, completed our survey. Clinicians had a median of 10 years of HPM experience and 6 years of outpatient experience. We identified two main areas of perceived knowledge or skill deficit: navigating insurance and prior authorizations and co-management of pain and opioid use disorder. Conclusion: Addressing gaps in education and preparedness for outpatient practice is essential to improve clinician competence and efficiency as well as patient care, safety, and care coordination. This study identifies practice management and opioid stewardship as potential targets for educational interventions. The development of curricula related to these outpatient skills may improve clinicians' ability to provide safe, patient-centered care with confidence.

Barriers to Buprenorphine Prescribing for Opioid Use Disorder in Hospice and Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinicians increasingly care for patients with concurrent painful serious illness and opioid use disorder (OUD) or opioid misuse; however, only a minority of HPC clinicians have an X-waiver license or actively use it to prescribe buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD.

OBJECTIVES

To understand barriers for HPC clinicians to obtaining an X-waiver and prescribing buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD.

METHODS

We performed content analysis on 100 survey responses from members of the national Buprenorphine Peer Support Network, a group of HPC clinicians interested in buprenorphine, on X-waiver status, barriers to obtaining an X-waiver, and barriers to active prescribing.

RESULTS

Of 100 HPC clinicians surveyed, only 26 of 57 HPC clinicians with X-waivers had ever prescribed. Prominent barriers included discomfort managing concurrent pain, buprenorphine, and OUD; concerns about impacts on practice; unsupportive practice culture; insufficient practice support; patient facing challenges; and cumbersome regulatory policies.

CONCLUSION

Despite HPC clinicians' interest in buprenorphine prescribing for OUD, several steps are needed to facilitate the practice, including clinician education tailored to pain and to clinical challenges faced by HPC clinicians, mentorship on buprenorphine use, and cultural and practice changes to dismantle systemic stigma towards addiction. We propose evidence-based steps derived from our survey findings that individual clinicians, HPC leaders, and national HPC organizations can take to improve care for patients with painful serious illness and OUD.

The Relevance of State Laws Regulating Opioid Prescribing for People Living With Serious Illness

CONTEXT

Opioids are commonly used to relieve symptoms such as pain and dyspnea in people living with serious illness. In recent years, 36 states enacted limitations for opioid prescriptions to mitigate the impact of the opioid overdose crisis. Palliative care clinicians have been vocal about the unintended consequences of opioid policies, yet little is known about how state policies apply to opioid prescribing in non-cancer-related serious illness.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current state-level limitations to opioid prescribing and exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

METHODS

Investigators searched publicly available laws ("[state] + opioid legislation") to extract information on opioid prescribing and exemptions. Laws were examined for application to palliative care, hospice, non-cancer-related serious illness, and language about specific symptoms was documented when applicable (e.g., pain, dyspnea).

RESULTS

Most state laws focused on acute pain and/or initial opioid prescriptions. Thirty-three of the thirty-six states with opioid-limiting legislation exempt situations applicable to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness. Three states did not have any exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that while most states recognize the importance of timely opioid access for palliation of pain, clinically relevant exemptions for people living with non-cancer-related serious illness may be lacking. When present, language describing palliative care, hospice, and terminal illness exemptions is often broad and may generate confusion between primary and specialty palliative care.

Opioid Prescribing and Use Among Cancer Survivors: A Mapping Review of Observational and Intervention Studies

CONTEXT

Recent years show a sharp increase in research on opioid use among cancer survivors, but evidence syntheses are lacking, leaving knowledge gaps. Corresponding research needs are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an evidence synthesis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase, identifying articles related to cancer, and opioid prescribing/use published through September 2020. We screened resulting titles/abstracts. Relevant studies underwent full-text review. Inclusion criteria were quantitative examination of and primary focus on opioid prescribing or use, and explicit inclusion of cancer survivors. Exclusion criteria included end-of-life opioid use and opioid use as a secondary or downstream outcome (for intervention studies). We extracted information on the opioid-related outcome(s) examined (including definitions and terminology used), study design, and methods.

RESULTS

Research returned 16,591 articles; 296 were included. Only 22 of 296 studies evaluated an intervention. There were 105 studies evaluating outcomes indicative of potentially high-risk, nonrecommended, or avoidable opioid use, e.g., continuous use-described as chronic use, prolonged use, and persistent use (n = 17); use after completion of curative-intent treatment-described as chronic opioid use, long-term opioid use, persistent opioid use, prolonged opioid use, continued opioid use, late opioid use, post-treatment opioid use (n = 27); use of opioids concurrent with other potentially high-risk medications (n = 13), and opioid misuse (n = 14).

CONCLUSIONS

We found lack of consistency in the measurement of and terms used to describe similar opioid use outcomes, and a lack of interventional research targeting well-documented patterns of potentially nonrecommended, potentially avoidable, or potentially high-risk opioid prescribing or use.

Opioid Use at End-Of-Life Among Nova Scotia Patients With Cancer

Purpose: To determine the factors associated with opioid analgesic prescriptions as measured by community pharmacy dispensations to all Nova Scotia (NS) patients with cancer at end-of-life from 2005 to 2009.

Methods: The NS Cancer Registry and the NS Prescription Monitoring Program (NSPMP) were used to link Nova Scotians who had a cancer diagnosis and received a prescription for opioids in their last year of life (n = 6,186) from 2005 to 2009. The association of factors with opioid dispensations at end-of-life were determined (e.g., patient demographics, type of prescriber, type of cancer, and opioid type, formulation, and dose).

Results: Almost 54% (n = 6,186) of the end-of-life study population with cancer (n = 11,498) was linked to the NSPMP and therefore dispensed opioids. Most prescriptions were written by general practitioners (89%) and were for strong opioids (81%). Immediate-release formulations were more common than modified-release formulations. Although the annual average parenteral morphine equivalents (MEQ) did not change during the study period, the number of opioid prescriptions per patient per year increased from 5.9 in 2006 to 7.0 in 2009 (p < 0.0001). Patients age 80 and over received the fewest prescriptions (mean 3.9/year) and the lowest opioid doses (17.0 MEQ) while patients aged 40–49 received the most prescriptions (mean 14.5/year) and the highest doses of opioid (80.2 MEQ).

Conclusion: Our study examined opioid analgesic use at end-of-life in patients with cancer for a large real-world population and determined factors, trends and patterns associated with type and dose of opioid dispensed. We provide information regarding how general practitioners prescribe opioid therapy to patients at end-of-life. Our data suggest that at the time of this study, there may have been under-prescribing of opioids to patients with cancer at end-of-life. This information can be used to increase awareness among general practitioners, and to inform recommendations from professional regulatory bodies, to aid in managing pain for cancer patients at end-of-life. Future work could address how opioid prescribing has changed over time, and whether efforts to reduce opioid prescribing in response to the opioid crisis have affected patients with cancer at end-of-life in Nova Scotia.

Depression and Long-Term Prescription Opioid Use and Opioid Use Disorder: Implications for Pain Management in Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Preventing depression in cancer patients on long-term opioid therapy should begin with depression screening before opioid initiation and repeated screening during treatment. In weighing the high morbidity of depression and opioid use disorder in patients with chronic cancer pain against a dearth of evidence-based therapies studied in this population, patients and clinicians are left to choose among imperfect but necessary treatment options. When possible, we advise engaging psychiatric and pain/palliative specialists through collaborative care models and recommending mindfulness and psychotherapy to all patients with significant depression alongside cancer pain. Medications for depression should be reserved for moderate to severe symptoms. We recommend escitalopram/citalopram or sertraline among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine if patients have a significant component of neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (consider nortriptyline or desipramine, which have better anticholinergic profiles) should be considered for patients who do not respond to or tolerate SSRI/SNRIs. Existing evidence is inadequate to definitively recommend methylphenidate or novel agents, such as ketamine or psilocybin, as adjunctive treatments for cancer-related depression and pain. Physicians who treat patients with cancer pain should utilize universal precautions to limit the risk of non-medical opioid use (non-medical opioid use). Patients should be screened for non-medical opioid use behaviors at initial consultation and at regular intervals during treatment using a non-judgmental approach that reduces stigma. Co-management with an addiction specialist may be indicated for patients at high risk of non-medical opioid use and opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine and methadone are indicated for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and while they have not been systematically studied for treatment of opioid use disorder in patients with cancer pain, they do provide analgesia for cancer pain. While an interdisciplinary team approach to manage psychological stress may be beneficial, this may not be possible for patients treated outside of comprehensive cancer centers.

A systematic review of assessment approaches to predict opioid misuse in people with cancer

Context

Cancer prevalence is increasing, with many patients requiring opioid analgesia. Clinicians need to ensure patients receive adequate pain relief. However, opioid misuse is widespread, and cancer patients are at risk.

Objectives

This study aims (1) to identify screening approaches that have been used to assess and monitor risk of opioid misuse in patients with cancer; (2) to compare the prevalence of risk estimated by each of these screening approaches; and (3) to compare risk factors among demographic and clinical variables associated with a positive screen on each of the approaches.

Methods

Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for articles reporting opioid misuse screening in cancer patients, along with handsearching the reference list of included articles. Bias was assessed using tools from the Joanna Briggs Suite.

Results

Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, evaluating seven approaches: Urine Drug Test (UDT) (n = 8); the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP) and two variants, Revised and Short Form (n = 6); the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE) tool and one variant, Adapted to Include Drugs (n = 6); the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) (n = 4); Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) (n = 3); the Screen for Opioid-Associated Aberrant Behavior Risk (SOABR) (n = 1); and structured/specialist interviews (n = 1). Eight studies compared two or more approaches. The rates of risk of opioid misuse in the studied populations ranged from 6 to 65%, acknowledging that estimates are likely to have varied partly because of how specific to opioids the screening approaches were and whether a single or multi-step approach was used. UDT prompted by an intervention or observation of aberrant opioid behaviors (AOB) were conclusive of actual opioid misuse found to be 6.5–24%. Younger age, found in 8/10 studies; personal or family history of anxiety or other mental ill health, found in 6/8 studies; and history of illicit drug use, found in 4/6 studies, showed an increased risk of misuse.

Conclusions

Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinical suspicion of opioid misuse may be raised by data from PMP or any of the standardized list of AOBs. Clinicians may use SOAPP-R, CAGE-AID, or ORT to screen for increased risk and may use UDT to confirm suspicion of opioid misuse or monitor adherence. More research into this important area is required.

Significance of results

This systematic review summarized the literature on the use of opioid misuse risk approaches in people with cancer. The rates of reported risk range from 6 to 65%; however, true rate may be closer to 6.5–24%. Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinicians may choose from several approaches. Limited data are available on feasibility and patient experience.

PROSPERO registration number.

CRD42020163385.

Approaches to opioid prescribing in cancer survivors: Lessons learned from the general literature

LAY SUMMARY

Guidance on how to approach opioid decisions for people beyond active cancer treatment is lacking. This editorial discusses strategies from the general literature that can be thoughtfully tailored to cancer survivors to provide patient-centered pain and opioid care.

Expert Panel Consensus on Management of Advanced Cancer-Related Pain in Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder

IMPORTANCE

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an important comorbidity in individuals with advanced cancer, in whom pain is common. Full-agonist opioid medications are the cornerstone of cancer pain management, but the existing literature does not address how to manage cancer pain in patients with OUD.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an expert panel to develop consensus on the appropriateness of management of cancer pain in individuals with co-occurring advanced cancer and OUD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A 3-round modified Delphi process was completed from August to October 2020 with 2 cases: patient with advanced cancer, pain, and OUD treated with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone. Participants rated management strategies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final responses in round 3. ExpertLens, an online approach to conducting modified Delphi panels, was used. Participants were experts in palliative care, addiction, or both, recruited by email from palliative care and addiction-focused professional groups, lists from prior studies, and snowball sampling. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to July 2021.

FINDINGS

Of 120 experts (median age, 40-49 years), most were White (78 participants [94%]), female (74 participants [62%]), and held MD or DO degrees (115 participants [96%]); 84 (70%) participated in all rounds. For a patient with OUD taking buprenorphine-naloxone, it was deemed appropriate to continue buprenorphine-naloxone with thrice-daily dosing. Continuing buprenorphine-naloxone and adding a full-agonist opioid was deemed to be appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for patients with a prognosis of months to years. For a patient with OUD taking methadone dispensed at a methadone clinic, it was deemed appropriate to take over prescribing and dose twice or thrice daily. Continuing methadone daily while adding another full-agonist opioid was deemed appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for those with a prognosis of months to years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed, consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps needed to facilitate implementation.

Dying with dignity: the challenges of end-of-life care in patients with substance use disorders

Substance use disorder is a chronic disease carrying a high risk of morbidity and mortality. We report a case of a patient on long-term opioid agonist treatment who was diagnosed with metastatic cholangiocarcinoma and was referred to palliative care services almost contemporaneously with this diagnosis. In this report, we explore the challenges posed in offering holistic care during the end of life of a patient with a history of opioid dependence. A coordinated approach by addiction medicine and palliative care teams can allow patients from this complex cohort to ultimately die with dignity.

Primary Addiction Medicine Skills for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Physicians: A Modified Delphi Study

CONTEXT

Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians frequently care for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), but there is no consensus on which primary addiction medicine (AM) skills are essential.

OBJECTIVES

Identify key primary AM skills that physicians should acquire during an ACGME-accredited HPM fellowship program.

METHODS

A modified Delphi study consisting of 18 experts on SUD in HPM and medical education. A literature review and expert input identified initial AM skills. In three Delphi rounds, participants rated each skill on a nine-point scale from "not at all important to include" to "crucial to include." We calculated medians (IQRs), analyzed panelists' comments, and grouped skills using the RAND / UCLA appropriateness method.

RESULTS

Among 62 proposed AM skills, 53 skills were rated as appropriate to include (38 of which achieved agreement), and nine skills were rated as uncertain. AM skills most relevant to HPM included 1) defining chemical coping, median 8.5 (IQR 2); 2) balancing life expectancy with risks of opioid use for patients with SUD, 9 (IQR 0); 3) explaining best practices to dispose unused opioids postmortem, 8 (IQR 2); 4) managing pain for hospice patients with SUD, 9 (IQR 0.75); and 5) partnering with hospice to manage patients on methadone and buprenorphine, 9 (IQR 2). Experts did not achieve consensus on whether HPM physicians should be encouraged to learn to prescribe buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder, 6 (IQR 3).

CONCLUSION

HPM fellowships should consider incorporating the primary AM skills identified in this study in their curricula.

Consensus-based approach to managing opioids, including opioid misuse and opioid use disorder, in patients with serious illness: protocol for a modified Delphi process

INTRODUCTION

Management of opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) among individuals with serious illness is an important yet understudied issue. Palliative care clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness, many of whom may live for months or years, describe a complex tension between weighing the benefits of opioids, which are considered a cornerstone of pain management in serious illness, and serious opioid-related harms like opioid misuse and OUD. And yet, little literature exists to inform the management of opioid misuse and OUDs among individuals with serious illness. Our objective is to provide evidence-based management guidance to clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who develop opioid misuse or OUD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We chose a modified Delphi approach, which is appropriate when empirical evidence is lacking and expert input must be used to shape clinical guidance. We sought to recruit 60 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, addiction or both to participate in this study. We created seven patient cases that capture important management challenges in individuals with serious illness prescribed opioid therapy. We used ExpertLens, an online platform for conducting modified Delphi panels. Participants completed three rounds of data collection. In round 1, they rated and commented on the appropriateness of management choices for cases. In round 2, participants reviewed and discussed their own and other participants' round 1 numerical responses and comments. In round 3 (currently ongoing), participants again reviewed rounds 1 and 2, and are allowed to change their final numerical responses. We used ExpertLens to automatically identify whether there is consensus, or disagreement, among responses in panels. Only round 3 responses will be used to assess final consensus and disagreement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project received ethical approval from the University of Pittsburgh's Institutional Review Board (study 19110301) and the RAND Institutional Research Board (study 2020-0142). Guidance from this work will be disseminated through national stakeholder networks to gain buy-in and endorsement. This study will also form the basis of an implementation toolkit for clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who are at risk of opioid misuse or OUD.

Adapting Palliative Care Skills to Provide Substance Use Disorder Treatment to Patients With Serious Illness

BACKGROUND

The majority of Palliative Care (PC) clinicians report recently caring for a person with a Substance Use Disorder (SUD). The impact of an untreated SUD is associated with significant suffering but many PC clinicians report a lack of confidence in managing this population.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to demonstrate existing PC skills that can be adapted to provide primary SUD treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted on quality PC domains and core SUD treatment principles. To demonstrate the shared philosophy and skills of PC clinicians and SUD treatment, the National Consensus Project Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care and resources outlining core Addiction Medicine and Nursing Competencies were used.

RESULTS

There is an abundance of overlapping domains in PC and SUD treatment. This paper focuses on the domains of communication, team-based care, quality of life considerations, addressing social determinants of health, and adherence to ethical principles. In each section, the shared domain in PC and SUD treatment is discussed and steps to expand PC clinician's skills are provided.

CONCLUSION

PC clinicians may be among the last healthcare touchpoint for persons with SUD, by naming the shared skills required in PC and evidenced-based SUD treatment, we challenge the field to undertake primary SUD treatment as part of its constant pursuit to better serve people living with serious illness.

Exploring Factors Associated With Long-Term Opioid Therapy in Cancer Survivors: An Integrative Review

CONTEXT

The prevalence of chronic pain in cancer survivors is double that of the general U.S.

POPULATION

Opioids have been the foundation of cancer pain management for decades; however, there is a paucity of literature on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) in cancer survivors. An understanding of factors related to LTOT use in cancer survivors is needed to address chronic pain and balance opioid harms in the expanding population of cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the research of LTOT utilization and factors associated with persistent opioid use in cancer survivors.

METHODS

A five-stage integrative review process was adapted from Whittemore and Knafl. Data sources searched included Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Quantitative research studies from 2010 to present related to cancer survivors managed on LTOT were included. Editorials, reviews, or abstracts were excluded.

RESULTS

After reviewing 315 articles, 21 articles were included. We found that there were several definitions of LTOT in the reviewed studies, but the duration of opioid use (i.e., more than three months after completion of curative treatment) was the most common. The reviewed literature describes a relationship between LTOT and important biopsychosocial factors (cancer type, socioeconomic factors, and comorbidities).

CONCLUSION

The studies in this review shed light on the factors associated with LTOT in cancer survivors. LTOT was common in certain populations of cancer survivors and those with a collection of patient-specific characteristics. This review suggests that there is a critical need for specialized research on chronic cancer pain and opioid safety in cancer survivors.

Palliative Care's Role Managing Cancer Pain During the Opioid Crisis: A Qualitative Study of Patients, Caregivers, and Clinicians

CONTEXT

Patients with cancer face symptoms because of disease and treatment, and pain is common and complex. The opioid crisis may complicate patients' and clinicians' experiences of managing pain in cancer care.

OBJECTIVES

In our study of perceptions and experiences with palliative care (PC) at an outpatient cancer center, we examined communication around symptom management throughout cancer care, and pain and its management emerged as particularly salient. The objective of this article is to describe, from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and oncology health care professionals, the role of PC in navigating the complicated dynamics of pain management amidst the opioid crisis.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study with grounded theory components was designed to investigate experiences with and perceptions of specialist PC and symptom management, including pain. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed, and focused coding identified themes related to pain and pain management from all three perspectives.

RESULTS

About 44 patients, caregivers, and non-PC health care professionals completed interviews. Patients with cancer and their caregivers had many concerns about pain management and were specifically concerned about opioid use and stigma. For patients, PC improved pain management and helped to destigmatize appropriate pain management. Oncology clinicians reported that partnering with PC facilitated complex pain management and also provided moral support around difficult opioid recommendations for patients.

CONCLUSION

PC offers the potential to uniquely support both patients and other oncology professionals in optimally navigating the complexity around pain management for cancer care in the midst of the opioid crisis.

Chronic Opioid Therapy: A Scoping Literature Review on Evolving Clinical and Scientific Definitions

The management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) with chronic opioid therapy (COT) is controversial. There is a lack of consensus on how COT is defined resulting in unclear clinical guidance. This scoping review identifies and evaluates evolving COT definitions throughout the published clinical and scientific literature. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. A total of 227 studies were identified from 8,866 studies published between January 2000 and July 2019. COT definitions were classified by pain population of application and specific dosage/duration definition parameters, with results reported according to PRISMA-ScR. Approximately half of studies defined COT as "days' supply duration >90 days" and 9.3% defined as ">120 days' supply," with other days' supply cut-off points (>30, >60, or >70) each appearing in <5% of total studies. COT was defined by number of prescriptions in 63 studies, with 16.3% and 11.0% using number of initiations or refills, respectively. Few studies explicitly distinguished acute treatment and COT. Episode duration/dosage criteria was used in 90 studies, with 7.5% by Morphine Milligram Equivalents + days' supply and 32.2% by other "episode" combination definitions. COT definitions were applied in musculoskeletal CNCP (60.8%) most often, and typically in adults aged 18 to 64 (69.6%). The usage of ">90 days' supply" COT definitions increased from 3.2 publications/year before 2016 to 20.7 publications/year after 2016. An increasing proportion of studies define COT as ">90 days' supply." The most recent literature trends toward shorter duration criteria, suggesting that contemporary COT definitions are increasingly conservative. PERSPECTIVE: This study summarized the most common, current definition criteria for chronic opioid therapy (COT) and recommends adoption of consistent definition criteria to be utilized in practice and research. The most recent literature trends toward shorter duration criteria overall, suggesting that COT definition criteria are increasingly stringent.

Characterizing Pain Experiences: African American Patients With Multiple Myeloma Taking Around-the-Clock Opioids

BACKGROUND

Despite known disparities by race, studies to date have not focused on pain characterization among African American patients with multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to characterize the pain experience, beliefs about pain and pain control, and additional symptoms among African American patients with multiple myeloma taking around-the-clock opioids.

METHODS

This study employed secondary analysis of baseline data from a completed longitudinal study of opioid adherence. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample, pain experience, beliefs regarding pain and pain control, and related symptoms.

FINDINGS

Participants (N = 34) experienced everyday pain and additional symptoms, and half experienced depression. Pain management barriers included dislike of pills, fear of addiction, and bothersome side effects from pain and medication. Additional larger studies can incorporate multilevel factors contributing to high symptom burden.

Patients perceptions of virtual reality therapy in the management of chronic cancer pain

The management of chronic cancer pain remains challenging and complex, with the process often involving a variety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Recent studies have shown virtual reality (VR) therapy to be successful in the management of acute pain. However, it remains unclear whether VR-based applications are effective as an adjunctive therapy for cancer patients with chronic pain. Moreover, there exists a gap in the current research landscape that address patient's perceptions of virtual reality therapy. This qualitative study enrolled patients from a larger ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial in two focus groups covering topics including patients experience with and perspectives on using VR for chronic pain control, both generally, and specific to their own circumstances. Five major thematic categories and 23 sub-categories emerged in the analysis process reflecting the participants' narrative. Similar to other research, this study found mixed results in the use of adjunctive VR therapy to manage chronic cancer pain, although a majority of respondents found it to be beneficial. This study confirms that pain management is a highly complex and individualized process. For maximum efficacy, it is recommended that future designs of VR interventions engage pain patients in the design process to ensure maximum efficacy of experiences to with individuals' preferences.

Underprescription of Step III Opioids in French Cancer Survivors With Chronic Pain: A Call for Integrated Early Palliative Care in Oncology

CONTEXT

Chronic pain (CP) is a major concern in cancer survivors. Often under-reported by patients, it is both underassessed and undertreated by care providers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess CP prevalence and related treatment in cancer survivors five years after diagnosis and to identify factors associated with prescribing opioids among survivors with CP, focusing on access to palliative care (PC).

METHODS

In 2015-2016, we interviewed 4174 French patients diagnosed with cancer five years previously. Combining patient-reported and clinical-reported outcomes together with medicoadministrative data, we studied factors associated with Step II and Step III opioid prescriptions in cancer survivors with CP. We performed multinomial logistic regression adjusting for various covariates, including self-reported health status variables and inpatient PC.

RESULTS

Five years after cancer diagnosis, 63.5% of the respondents reported current CP (i.e., pain lasting three months or more). Of these, 64.6% and 14.4% were prescribed at least one Step II or Step III opioid, respectively. Only 1.9% had had inpatient PC since diagnosis. After adjustment for age, gender, clinical and self-reported variables, we found that the latter were more likely to receive Step III opioids (adjusted relative risk ratio 5.33; 95% CI 1.15, 24.58).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a high prevalence of CP five years after cancer diagnosis. Step III opioids were underprescribed but positively associated with inpatient PC. PC access in France remains limited, especially among cancer survivors. Integrating PC in oncology is essential to provide the best cancer-related symptoms management.

Pain Management in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: An Update

Most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) suffer from chronic pain at every stage of the natural disease process. This review focuses on the most common causes of chronic pain in MM patients: (1) pain from myeloma bone disease (MBD); (2) chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy as a possible consequence of proteasome inhibitor therapy (i.e., bortezomib-induced); (3) post-herpetic neuralgia as a possible complication of varicella zoster virus reactivation because of post-transplantation immunodepression; and (4) pain in cancer survivors, with increasing numbers due to the success of antiblastic treatments, which have significantly improved overall survival and quality of life. In this review, non-pain specialists will find an overview including a detailed description of physiopathological mechanisms underlying central sensitization and pain chronification in bone pain, the rationale for the correct use of analgesics and invasive techniques in different pain syndromes, and the most recent recommendations published on these topics. The ultimate target of this review was to underlie that different types of pain can be observed in MM patients, and highlight that only after an accurate pain assessment, clinical examination, and pain classification, can pain be safely and effectively addressed by selecting the right analgesic option for the right patient.

Managing Opioids, Including Misuse and Addiction, in Patients With Serious Illness in Ambulatory Palliative Care: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Pain and opioid management are core ambulatory palliative care skills. Existing literature on how to manage opioid misuse/use disorder excludes patients found in palliative care settings, such as individuals with serious illness or those at the end of life.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an exploratory study to: (1) Identify the challenges palliative care clinicians face when prescribing opioids in ambulatory settings and (2) explore factors that affect opioid decision-making.

METHODS

We recruited palliative care clinicians who prescribe opioids in ambulatory settings, which included open-ended questions and was conducted online. Results were analyzed qualitatively using a content analysis-based approach.

RESULTS

Eighty-three palliative care clinicians (mostly MDs/DOs) participated. Challenges faced when prescribing opioids included clinician differences in approach to care (eg, transitioning from another clinician with more permissive opioid prescribing), medication access (eg, inadequate pharmacy supply), resource constraints (eg, access to mental health and addiction expertise), managing problems outside the typical palliative care scope (eg addiction). Participants also discussed factors that influenced their opioid prescribing decisions, such as opioid-related harms and risks that they need to weigh; they also spoke about the necessity of considering other factors like the patient's environment, disease, treatment, and prognosis.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the challenge of opioid management in patients with serious illness, particularly when misuse or substance use disorder is present, and suggests areas for future research focus. Our next step will be to establish consensus on approaches to opioid prescribing decision-making and policy in seriously ill patients presenting to ambulatory palliative care.

A systematic review of substance use and substance use disorders in patients with cancer

OBJECTIVE

Few studies examined substance use in cancer patients. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize this evidence, identify methodological limitations, and provide future research directions.

METHOD

Articles on substance use in cancer (focused on illicit substance, opioid, and alcohol use) were searched in Medline, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES.

RESULTS

On the basis of inclusion criteria, 28 studies were reviewed. Twenty-one contained empiric data from 500,123 participants; seven were review or conceptual papers. All studies were published between 1995 and 2018. Quality assessment revealed relatively low risk of bias and high methodological quality. Five studies examined substance use or substance use disorder (SUD) broadly. Mean ages ranged from 17.6 to 74.7 years. Substance use rates ranged from 2% to 35%, with a median opioid rate of 18% and 25.5% for alcohol. Nine of the studies had samples comprised either mostly or exclusively of advanced cancer patients. Disease groups included breast, head & neck, and gastric cancer. None of the studies used a theoretical framework or model.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the prevalence of substance use in cancer patients, interventions are needed. Further theory-grounded studies are warranted to foster the translation of research into clinical practice and elucidate substance use management recommendations.

Navigating Challenging Conversations About Nonmedical Opioid Use in the Context of Oncology

Opioids are commonly used in the context of oncology to treat cancer-related pain. In the context of increased awareness of nonmedical use of opioids, including misuse and opioid use disorder among individuals with cancer, oncologists may find themselves having difficult conversations with patients regarding the use of opioids. We offer a review of pertinent literature and a conversation framework for providers to use, as well as key communication strategies for clinicians. Building on the therapeutic alliance between provider and patient, emphasizing the importance of nonabandonment, and using a benefit-to-harm framework, we hope clinicians find they are more able to navigate these challenging but important conversations with patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Providers may find it difficult and uncomfortable to discuss nonmedical use of opioids with patients. To the authors' knowledge, no previous articles discuss ways to communicate about nonmedical use of opioids in the oncology setting. This work borrows from other specialties and offers a communication framework and key communication strategies to help clinications communicate more effectively with patients who may have an opioid use disorder or may be using their prescribed opioids for reasons other than their pain.

Risk Assessment and Monitoring of Patients with Cancer Receiving Opioid Therapy

To provide safe and effective management of cancer pain, a thorough risk assessment is needed when conducting a comprehensive pain evaluation. This information provides the basis for decisions about appropriate pain relief interventions and for measures that can be taken to mitigate the potential for misuse of opioids and other substances.

The primary objective of this article is to assist oncologists and advanced practice prescribers to safely and effectively minimize risk when providing opioids for cancer pain relief. The majority of people with cancer are unlikely to misuse or divert opioid medications, yet the prescriber is often unaware of those who are at risk for these behaviors. To provide skillful pain management to each patient in the oncology setting, while limiting harm to the community, all prescribers must consider the potential for risk of misuse, addiction, or diversion. To minimize this risk to the greatest degree possible, it is imperative to include a thorough risk assessment when conducting a comprehensive pain evaluation. This information is then used to triage pain relief interventions based upon the degree of risk, including whether or not to incorporate opioids into the plan of care. Risk mitigation strategies, incorporating universal precautions, are implemented to assess, monitor, and reduce the potential for opioid misuse. Universal precautions include strategies such as the use of urine toxicology, state prescription drug monitoring programs, and agreements. Ongoing monitoring is conducted with the goal being to identify aberrant behaviors early so that they can be addressed and managed appropriately. Referral to addiction specialists may be warranted when substance use disorder precludes safe use of opioids.

Implications for Practice.

Throughout the trajectory of cancer care, opioid use is often indicated, and, in fact, it may be unethical to limit or prohibit the use of opioids when pain is severe. Oncologists face the significant challenge of providing cancer pain control that is safe and effective, while limiting individual risk for abuse or overdose and keeping the community free of diverted substances. Most oncology providers report inadequate training in chronic pain principles and in managing addiction. Risk assessment and mitigation measures can be incorporated within oncology care to enhance effective pain management while reducing the potential for harm.

Pain Management in the Cancer Survivor

OBJECTIVES

To describe assessment and interdisciplinary management of pain in the cancer survivor over the continuum of cancer care.

DATA SOURCES

Review of the literature and treatment standards.

CONCLUSION

Pain remains a primary concern throughout the cancer trajectory across all age groups and diagnoses, emphasizing the need to integrate pain assessment and management across the continuum of cancer survivorship and across care settings. Types of pain, pain patterns, assessment of cancer pain in cancer survivors, current strategies and challenges for management, and effective communication and documentation of the process are described. Communication between and among health care clinicians in a way that effectively articulates the individual patient experience, including documentation in the electronic medical record, requires consistent workflows and terminology. The opioid crisis increases the urgency in effective strategies for interdisciplinary pain assessment and management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Oncology clinicians must be able to adequately assess pain, track pain over time, understand and implement a cadre of strategies to manage pain, and effectively pursue any suspicious pain patterns that may indicate recurrence or progression of cancer or other underlying etiologies. The oncology nurse is at the core of patient-clinician communication, critical to effectively describing pain as experienced by the individual patient and continues to play a key role in maintaining consistency of message that is necessary to manage pain over the continuum of cancer survivorship.